D&D 5E What's the rush? Has the "here and now" been replaced by the "next level" attitude?

[Celebrim]

I don't find the adventure path concept to be about delayed gratification at all.

I'm being a bit of a hypocrit in this thread, because I'm currently running an adventure path game for reasons somewhat similar to the reasons you are here challenging me over. I've never been able to run an adventure path to completion as a mature DM, and to bring my grand designs to full completion is something I really want to do.

But, on the other hand I'm 3 years into the adventure and the players haven't yet even figured out what the bad guys are about. They are still thinking that the bad guys are building some sort of super weapon, don't know who the BBEG is, and haven't yet reached what would be the halfway point in the novelization of the story. I'm taking a huge risk here, and I know it. The alternative to this is not disjointed adventures. The alternative is running a sandbox on a smaller stage with multiple shorter narrative arcs, or running an adventure path that concieves an epic walk from say 1st to 6th level. Consider for example what Lost City of Barakus does by assuming 'epic power' is not equated with '20th level'. There is plenty of oppurtunity to do rewarding stories and NPCs and locations without assuming big numbers equal better, or that saving the whole world is the only thing of significance a hero can do.

So I'm not saying adventure paths are bad.

But if you are feeling like your campaigns are never 'finishing', stop playing campaigns that delay finishing or need endings. Open ended games like I played as a kid _never_ finished, yet there is no need for them to be disjointed. The fundamental story of those games was of the growing scope of influence and reknown of the heroes as they won honor and wealth. The story started out as the story of becoming a hero in your village, then a hero in your region and your role as a knight errant and guest of lords, and then growing up and up without end until you were kings in your own right and by your own hand. If you just stopped playing as the Baron of Third, the fact you hadn't become the Duke of Fourth didn't mean the game had been a failure.

 

[pemerton]

The game offers more stuff at levelup than in 1E/2E so people look forward to it

Which classes are you talking about? Mages and clerics get awesome stuff at level-up in AD&D - new spell slots every level, and new spell levels every second level (or so - it's a bit wonky around name level).

Todays gamers are expecting more instant gratification.

This makes no real sense to me. Game playing is, in general, a form of gratification, which takes effect immediately upon playing the game.

Of course some games reward practice and mastery (eg chess) in a way that others don'd (eg Monopoly), but in the case of D&D this is much more about adventure design and GM practices, than about player attitudes. There was "low skill" D&D being played back in the day just as much as there is today: look at all the rants against "lottery D&D" that one can find in the publications dating from the late 70s/ealy 80s.

Because instant gratification design tends to devalue the whole product as rewards must be tossed out for pretty much everything to keep the player interested

Well, playing the game should be rewarding. It's a voluntary leisure activity - if it's not rewarding, why engage in it?

If part of what a person enjoys about the game is mastering a certain build, then letting that person change build from time-to-time (eg by levelling) makes sense.

If part of what a person enjoys about the game is seeing the scope of the story develop and escalate, then letting such escalation take place (eg via PC levelling) makes sense.

You seem to be thinking of levelling simply in terms of "bigger numbers", as if that is self-evidently a meaningful thing. You don't seem to be analysing what levelling actually means for the experience that a player has in playing the game.

failure is not tolerated at all. That limits the type of stories you can play somewhat, usually a shallow black & white (doesn't require too much thinking) combat heavy (many fights mean many rewards) railroads (to control the pacing so constant gratification is ensured).

Whose game do you think you're describing here?

Why would a game with steady levelling have to be combat heavy? Others can comment on 3E/PF, but in 4e XP accrue for a whole range of gameplay activities, of which combat is only one.

Why would a game with steady levelling have to be a railroad? In a system in which XP are awarded whenever the players engage the ing-game situation via their PCs (4e is an example of such a system), the players (tautologously enough) earn XP by engaging the in-game situation via their PCs. There is no connection between that sort of active, engaged play and railroading. In fact, that sort of player-driven approach is a standard prescription in anti-railroading game advice.

Why would a game with steady levelling be inimical to thinking? If XP are earned by engaging the in-game situation via active play of one's PC, then thinking will be a pre-requisite for earning XP.

My game involves steady levelling. It is not a railroad. It requires the players to think. It is not remotely hack-and-slash. (And from that minimal description, you couldn't tell whether I'm GMing 4e or Gygaxian AD&D.)

the mechanical performance of the PC construct has a much larger impact on in-game success than it used to. Player decisions thus become more valuable during character building and level-up than they do during actual adventures.

It is perfectly natural for players to focus on the parts of the activity in which their personal input matters most. In modern D&D these activities are building the character and making choices at level-up time. During an actual adventure its just a matter of pushing the buttons that you selected at your last decision point.

The bits about player resources I agree with as far as non-casters are concerened - PC build has increasingly come to occupy the functional position that, in the old days, was occupied by magic items. For casters, build choices (including daily memorisation choices) always mattered.

The bit about "pushing buttons" doesn't resonate with me at all, though. At least as I see it played, choices made in play during 4e are as significant as choices made in play during AD&D. (Although sometimes the subject matter of the choices is different - eg AD&D cares far more about PC gear as a player resource than does 4e.)

 

[Umbran]

But if you are feeling like your campaigns are never 'finishing', stop playing campaigns that delay finishing or need endings.Open ended games like I played as a kid _never_ finished, yet there is no need for them to be disjointed. The fundamental story of those games was of the growing scope of influence and reknown of the heroes as they won honor and wealth.

But even that has a beginning, a middle, and an end, such that cutting it at an arbitrary point somewhere along the arc can feel unsatisfying.

Which is to say, that the plot arc isn't the only one in the game. Individual characters have their own arcs - even in a game comprised of individual, disjointed episodic adventures, the character growth (either in terms of power and scope of influence, or in terms of personality growth and change for the actors out there) also has an arc.

 

[Celebrim]

But even that has a beginning, a middle, and an end, such that cutting it at an arbitrary point somewhere along the arc can feel unsatisfying.

To a point, yes. But you are (I think) no longer saying anything about the need for that arc to have some arbitrary numeric value attached to it. The arcs you are talking about aren't dependent on hitting 10th or 20th level, or getting 50 or 100 hit points. The growth I'm talking about and which you are expanding on isn't marked by particular growth in levels. There are goals I hear you referencing here are in the game, and not in the metagame. And if that is so, then we are in agreement despite your refinement and quibbles.

Which is to say, that the plot arc isn't the only one in the game. Individual characters have their own arcs - even in a game comprised of individual, disjointed episodic adventures, the character growth (either in terms of power and scope of influence, or in terms of personality growth and change for the actors out there) also has an arc.

If a player is so mature that from the outset he concieves of the growth of his character being in terms of personality change and not numeric inflation, then he has a very different set of needs from his campaign than the guy who just wants a 20th level Hulking Hurler. It is in some ways harder to meet the needs of the former than the later, but it in no ways requires as much level grinding for its own sake. Character growth in terms of power and scope of influence is relative to the environment. You don't have to be as wordy as Robert Jordan or GRR Martin to have characters grow in depth; character growth is usualy relative to a situation within a story as much as the story itself. The story is only there as a vehicle for showing how the situation changed the character.

There are several 2e adventures that laughably have the characters grow in absolute power and save the world, and yet force them to retain the same lack of influence, reknown, and relative power they enjoyed as 1st level characters. So many DMs are stingier with reknown, influence, and power than they are with gold and +5 vorpal swords, and with NPCs that level up whenever the PCs do so that city guards are elite 12th level fighters, and the guy behind the bar polishing glasses is a retired 15th level adventurer. In the FR, anyone who is anyone is 20th level. If that is your model of the world, of course you need to level up, but I question whether you are actually gaining anything by doing so.

 

[The Human Target]

Based on personal experiences I don't think it has anything to do with the adventures or what is happening in the campaign. There has been an increasing focus on the mechanical capabilities of PCs and the improvement rate at such things since 3E. The contributing factors to this are (as have been pointed out) the number of decision points for mechanical development that impact play and are made outside of actual play have increased. Also the mechanical performance of the PC construct has a much larger impact on in-game success than it used to. Player decisions thus become more valuable during character building and level-up than they do during actual adventures.

It is perfectly natural for players to focus on the parts of the activity in which their personal input matters most. In modern D&D these activities are building the character and making choices at level-up time. During an actual adventure its just a matter of pushing the buttons that you selected at your last decision point. That's old news. The interesting bit is the NEXT decision point.

The cure is to simply put the decision points that matter back where they belong- during actual play. That is why I run OD&D.

Doing both is super easy.

 

[Minigiant]

This is why the E6 people are on to something. You could have just as easily said, "Until you get your meteor swarm, you don't care about his class features." What if 'Fireball' was something you looked at as being as over the top (and hense as unnecessary) as Meteor Swarm? What if you saw it as not the baseline, but the capstone? If it was enough to throw fire, send spreads of flame, and so for to feel like you were a 'Fire Mage', Fireball would be exciting to obtaining but wouldn't be an end unto itself nor would it be something which - by anticipating it - you were ruining your game until you had it.



Yeah, but that's like 2nd or 3rd level if 'all the orcs in his forest' are 1st level warriors.



I feel that's a terrible terrible mistake foredoomed to make you miserable in the game, alway looking forward to what is going to happen and never enjoying what you have. "All his life has he looked away... to the future, to the horizon. Never his mind on where he was. Hmm? What he was doing." That's a gaurantee that you'll become bitter about the games you play.

Unfortunately D&D builds itself on abilities that can be only obtain via levels or treasure.

You can't be that scary fire mage who a lord called to solve his goblin problem until you gain the fireballs by level or treasure. Nor can you be the master of your forest until to can kill all the orcs and their leader.

If you put game defining aspects attached to levels (or treasure), you can't be surprised that people focus on getting them. D&D is not a game where you start with everything you need and just get better with levels.

 

[Derren]

yes it limits the stories you can tell, but is that really a bad thing? i would much rather pay for a system that allows me to tell great stories of a certain type then one that would allow me to tell any story in a mediocre or lackluster manner.

Good if you like (only) stories of this certain type. Not so good if you like others, too and want to play them without having to switch to a other system.

as for "doesn't require too much thinking" can mean a lot. do you mean system depth or complexity? i don't care for complexity as a be-all end all but i do want depth, meat, to my system.

It means story complexity. Systems designed for instant gratification (Skinner box has been mentioned, so when you can stand the voice look here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tWtvrPTbQ_c) require for this gratification to be constant in small intervals. Having a complex story on the other hand can mean that the intervals can get very long in the case that the players get stuck or even run into the wrong direction. Thats why they tend to be linear with a clear enemy (and maybe with a cliché twist near the end).

As for the rest of your post, watch the Skinner Box video. Instant gratification games tend to build such conditioning into their system which makes it very hard to run different games where there is no constant reward dangling in front of the players which, at least in my experience, become more and more reactive as they expect the game to tell them what to do to get the next reward.

Which classes are you talking about? Mages and clerics get awesome stuff at level-up in AD&D - new spell slots every level, and new spell levels every second level (or so - it's a bit wonky around name level).

They got stuff at level up in previous editions, too but not as much as when this whole thing really started with 3E. Now they not only get spells at every levels, they also get feats and possibly other rewards during leveling.

This makes no real sense to me. Game playing is, in general, a form of gratification, which takes effect immediately upon playing the game.

Theoretically yes. Practically though, leveling up becomes more and more important over simply playing. That is the the whole point of the thread. That players are not satisfied with playing what they have any more, but that they constantly carve the next levelup. See the Skinner Box video from above.

Well, playing the game should be rewarding. It's a voluntary leisure activity - if it's not rewarding, why engage in it?

If part of what a person enjoys about the game is mastering a certain build, then letting that person change build from time-to-time (eg by levelling) makes sense.

If part of what a person enjoys about the game is seeing the scope of the story develop and escalate, then letting such escalation take place (eg via PC levelling) makes sense.

You seem to be thinking of levelling simply in terms of "bigger numbers", as if that is self-evidently a meaningful thing. You don't seem to be analysing what levelling actually means for the experience that a player has in playing the game.

Whose game do you think you're describing here?

Why would a game with steady levelling have to be combat heavy? Others can comment on 3E/PF, but in 4e XP accrue for a whole range of gameplay activities, of which combat is only one.

Why would a game with steady levelling have to be a railroad? In a system in which XP are awarded whenever the players engage the ing-game situation via their PCs (4e is an example of such a system), the players (tautologously enough) earn XP by engaging the in-game situation via their PCs. There is no connection between that sort of active, engaged play and railroading. In fact, that sort of player-driven approach is a standard prescription in anti-railroading game advice.

Why would a game with steady levelling be inimical to thinking? If XP are earned by engaging the in-game situation via active play of one's PC, then thinking will be a pre-requisite for earning XP.

My game involves steady levelling. It is not a railroad. It requires the players to think. It is not remotely hack-and-slash. (And from that minimal description, you couldn't tell whether I'm GMing 4e or Gygaxian AD&D.)

The bits about player resources I agree with as far as non-casters are concerened - PC build has increasingly come to occupy the functional position that, in the old days, was occupied by magic items. For casters, build choices (including daily memorisation choices) always mattered.

You seem to confuse "instant gratification" with "steady leveling". Steady leveling alone is not the problem, even 5 months can be steady. The problem is instant gratification (again, see the skinner box video) which imo limits what type of games you can play with the system when it builds too much on instant gratification (which can be more than leveling).
And since 3E I have seen (or imagine) D&D becoming more and more build around instant gratification.
More easy and faster leveling, "special abilities, etc." at every level, wealth by level guidelines/treasure parcels, etc. All this entices the player more and more to "get to the next level", so much that playing what you have became boring as you do not get your next reward.

Building D&D around instant gratification can be (and most likely is) just a reaction as the rest of the entertainment industry does this, too (see video games) which means the current youth already comes per-conditioned to the table and expects a constant flow of rewards or otherwise get bored/frustrated.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

There are two levels of game here:

1) There's the actual game itself, where you kill orcs and loot tombs and save the world.
2) There's the meta-game where you build your characters, and decide which dice you'll roll in the future when you get back around to (1).

My personal observation, particularly with 3E and Pathfinder, is that some players obsess over (2) to the detriment of (1). I never want to spend an entire hour, or more, in just building a character; I would rather my time be spent killing orcs and looting tombs and saving the world.

Whenever you reach a decision point, be that a feat or new spell or sub-class, it shifts the focus away from (1) and onto (2). So people focus on (2), and eagerly await their next decision point so they can get back to making more meta-game decisions.

 

[The Human Target]

The metagame is for between sessions.

And actually, I don't think levelling up is some sort of wrong nongame part of the game.

Who is spending hours making a character at the table, unless its a pregame session?

Who even levels up during a session?

Who is so paralyzed by choosing a feat that can't fight orcs or loot tombs or save the world?

This argument baffles me.

 

[Psychotic Jim]

But I think the point of the thread is about people never having fun at any level per se, but only getting gratification from the levelling up process itself.

I have seen a lot of players not using most of their PC's abilities, because they are so focused on "what's next", and then play their PC in a very repetitive way at every level.

In a sense, it's weird that players care more about levelling up quickly in recent editions, where they have a lot to do or try out at each level, while in older editions you might in fact had many "dead levels" with not many new tactical options to try out.

This is an interesting perspective I'd like to highlight.

A lot of other people are throwing around the term "instant gratification". If there's always a focus on "what's next" or long-term planning on levels of progression, etc., then logically that's not truly a focus on instant gratification. It's a focus on a gradual and steady achievement or a long-term progression of power, in other words, a rat-race mentality to get ahead. Forsaking pleasure in the moment (i.e., enjoying what's going on right now) in the hopes of enjoying "the next big thing" to be found at some theoretical time in the future.

Enjoying what is going on in the here and now would be more of a focus on "instant" gratification in the sense you are focusing on the here and now. If players are always looking towards the future for long-term growth/meaning, perhaps there needs to be more focus on pleasures of the here-and-now and enjoying what is currently at hand (whether that means changing the culture so that a wider variety of things are preferred or somehow making the earlier levels more enjoyable).